GST registration cancellation and rejection of revocation may be challenged through the statutory appellate mechanism where an effective appeal is available. Failure to satisfactorily establish a timely response to the show-cause notice, together with allegations of transactions and input-tax-credit claims involving cancelled registrants, supported declining writ relief. The appellate remedy under the CGST framework was treated as complete, requiring the challenge to proceed through that route.

Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act makes input tax credit conditional on proof that the supplier paid the charged tax, and the condition is treated as neither arbitrary nor disproportionate; a supplier's default does not justify reading it down. Challenges concerning receipt of goods, supplier tax payment, adequacy of hearing, non-application of mind, statutory overlap, and duplicate demands involve factual or mixed questions. Those objections must be pursued through the statutory appeal, where they remain open for independent determination. A hearing defect is curable and, without a jurisdictional defect, does not justify writ intervention.

Proper-officer functions may be assigned by circular to officers already appointed as Central Tax officers, with specified functions and monetary limits for action under the CGST Act. The relevant distinction is between assigning functions to existing tax officers and assigning them to persons lacking appointment as customs officers. Where a demand order considers defence material and affords a personal hearing, factual and documentary objections require appellate review. An effective statutory appeal remains the appropriate route absent a recognised exception to writ intervention.

Expiry of the ordinary limitation period did not preclude the petitioner's use of the statutory appellate remedy. The petitioner received two weeks to file the appeal, which must be entertained on merits without a limitation objection. The direction preserves access to statutory appellate review notwithstanding the lapse of the ordinary filing period.

Service of a show-cause notice under Section 73 exclusively through the GST portal after cancellation of registration breaches principles of natural justice. Once registration is cancelled, the registered person is not obliged to continue monitoring the portal, so portal-only service does not provide an effective opportunity to respond. A proper alternative mode of service is required. The order passed without such effective notice was quashed, while the Department retained liberty to issue a valid notice and continue proceedings in accordance with law.

Section 75(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires a show-cause notice to clearly specify the proposed amounts of tax, interest and penalty. Where Form DRC-01 does not quantify the proposed interest and penalty, those liabilities cannot be confirmed. Confirmation of unquantified interest or penalty is contrary to the statutory requirement that the notice disclose the amounts proposed for recovery.

Expiry of an e-way bill alone does not justify detention, tax or penalty under Section 129(3) unless material supports an inference of intent to evade tax. Breach of e-way bill requirements is insufficient where invoices, transport documents and e-way bill particulars consistently identify the goods and physical verification finds no discrepancy in description, quantity, value or tax. An unrebutted explanation that a vehicle breakdown during the Covid-19 lockdown caused expiry, without independent enquiry or contrary evidence, prevents an adverse inference of tax evasion.

Section 73 permits proceedings for alleged wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit, with entitlement to be adjudicated under Section 75. Audit findings may support initiation, and a show-cause notice does not itself determine liability. Questions concerning invoices, receipt of supplies, banking payments, GSTR-2A reflection, supplier compliance and precedent require determination by the proper officer; the notice therefore remains for statutory adjudication rather than pre-adjudication quashing in writ jurisdiction. Where interim writ protection restrains further proceedings, the period of that restraint is excluded when applying the limitation period, preventing the stay from prejudicing the statutory proceeding. All factual and legal credit defences remain available before the proper officer.

Section 129(3) detention and penalty provisions should not be applied solely because an e-way bill has expired where invoices and transport documents are accurate. An unrebutted vehicle breakdown, coupled with no independent enquiry, does not support an adverse inference that goods were moved to evade tax. In these circumstances, expiry alone does not establish intent to evade tax, and detention, consequential tax and penalty cannot be sustained; deposited amounts are refundable in accordance with law.

Proper-officer functions under the CGST Act may be assigned by circular to Central Tax Officers already appointed under a statutory notification, including demand-related functions allocated by monetary limits. Such assignment does not constitute delegation requiring a separate notification. Challenges to the circulars and to the officer's competence on that basis were rejected. A writ challenge to a GST demand order should ordinarily not proceed where an effective statutory appeal is available, unless a recognised exception applies. Where the authority considered the defence, examined documents and granted a personal hearing, reassessment of disputed material lies with the appellate authority. The demand challenge was therefore directed to the statutory appeal, with limitation protection for filing within 30 days.

GST refund provisions for unutilised input tax credit do not restrict refund applications to suppliers making supplies to SEZ units. The relevant refund rule identifies suppliers as one category of applicants but does not exclude an SEZ unit from claiming its own refund. Reading such a restriction into the statutory scheme would impermissibly add a limiting condition. SEZ units are therefore entitled to have eligible refund claims processed under the GST refund framework, and orders rejecting the claim on that restrictive basis were set aside.

Entry 27 exempts services of extending deposits, loans or advances where consideration is represented by interest or discount, except interest in credit-card services; qualifying interest recovery is therefore exempt from GST. A taxpayer claiming that turnover reported in one State actually comprised exempt interest attributable to another State must prove that assertion through cogent documentary evidence. Form GSTR-09C and a Chartered Accountant's certificate without disclosed findings or identifiable documentary support do not discharge that burden. Failure to provide supporting evidence permits an adverse inference, leaving the disputed turnover unestablished as exempt interest and resulting in rejection of the claim.

GST exemption under Notification No. 12/2017 may apply to recovery of amounts under written-off housing loan accounts. As a statutory notification has force of law, its applicability constitutes a pure question of law capable of being raised at the appellate stage. Entry 27 covers services by way of extending loans, while entitlement to exemption for a particular recovery depends on cogent proof that it arose from a written-off housing loan in the relevant financial year. Certified banker's books are admissible as prima facie evidence, but supporting loan write-off records are required. A cross-objection is unnecessary where the respondent has received complete relief and may operate as a reply. Factual applicability remains for determination after consideration of the records.

Section 74 tax determinations based on suppression of facts require service of a statutory show cause notice and consideration of the taxpayer's representation. The notice must specify the demand, foundational facts and necessary particulars so the taxpayer can respond effectively. GST DRC forms or other communications cannot substitute for the statutory notice. Determining a demand without serving such notice denies the taxpayer knowledge of the allegations and an effective opportunity of representation, vitiating the proceedings; the first appellate order was set aside and the appeal allowed.

GST law does not require a transporter to declare or follow a particular route. Transporting goods by a longer route for logistical safety reasons, while carrying valid documents, does not establish mala fide intent to evade tax without material showing an intended diversion or other tax evasion. Route-based obligations under earlier VAT regimes do not apply under the GST Acts or Rules. Accordingly, detention of goods and penalty under section 129 were unsustainable solely because a longer route was used; the detention-penalty orders were quashed and refund of the penalty paid under protest was directed in accordance with law.

Statutory pre-deposit for a Tribunal appeal must be assessed against the disputed tax remaining after the first appellate authority reduces the tax demand. The deposit made at the first appellate stage represents a prescribed portion of the dispute, not payment of a separate liability. No further pre-deposit under section 112(8) is required where the amount already deposited equals or exceeds the aggregate prescribed percentage of the surviving disputed tax. Requiring an additional deposit in those circumstances would mechanically duplicate the pre-deposit obligation and produce an anomalous, unworkable result.

Rule 138 permits extension of an e-way bill only within eight hours after expiry and does not authorise a fresh e-way bill on the same invoice. A second bill generated after expiry may be treated as fraudulent where the claimed vehicle breakdown, repair, and subsequent goods movement lack reliable evidence. Unexplained delay, a different loading location, and modification of invoice details to generate another bill are indicators supporting an inference of intent to evade tax on a preponderance of probabilities. Such transportation may attract penalty under section 129.

Student-enrolment services supplied to overseas universities are intermediary services where the Indian representative facilitates the university's educational supply to prospective students rather than providing courses or instruction on its own account. Representative status, restricted authority, commission disclosure, and remuneration linked to enrolment and fee receipt support that classification. Until 29 March 2026, the special intermediary place-of-supply rule placed the supply in India, preventing export treatment. From 30 March 2026, omission of that rule applies the general recipient-location rule, causing the services to satisfy the export requirement.

Health insurance services supplied under MEDISEP Phase-II to Clause A beneficiaries qualify for GST exemption where the State Government pays the entire premium under the insurance scheme. The State Government is the recipient of the insurance service because it alone bears the premium liability; employees, pensioners and family members remain insured beneficiaries without changing that status. The exemption under Sl. No. 40 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) is not conditional on the Government being the insured person or receiving insurance benefits. Premium received for this exempt supply is not taxable, subject to continued full Government payment. The position excludes Clause B beneficiaries.

Turmeric Extract / Curcuma Elixir, sold for direct human consumption as a general wellness nutraceutical or dietary supplement, falls under Heading 2106 as a food preparation. Classification follows primary function, essential character, common parlance and consumer perception, rather than medicinal qualities of ingredients; products intended for general well-being without specific therapeutic claims or drug recognition are not medicaments. The water-based product was also outside Chapter 33 because it contained no extracted essential oil and was not aromatic or intended for perfumery, cosmetics or flavouring. GST applied at 18% until revision and 5% from 22 September 2025. MRP does not affect classification or rate unless a rate notification makes it conditional on a value threshold.